Let me preface this discussion by saying that I do not consider Harry Potter a morality tale, and believe we will find ourselves continually disappointed if we expect Jo Rowling to come up with solutions to the world problems. And although I will fight with all my might to support anyone's right to discuss, their opinion, idealism, I also support and defend my and any other's posters right to disagree with those opinions within the unwritten and written rules of this site, common curtesy and public debate.

This thread is designed to discuss how the Harry Potter books, like other literary works, especially fiction, works to send out underlying messages that even the author unaware of. For example, there are dicussion in the LOTR fandom who feel certain passages in LOTR support ideals linked to Aryan purity. Many film critics were disturbed by Jar-Jar-Binks speech patterns, or even the Ewoks as primitive but cute and lovable edition that suggest a racist point of view of some cultures.

There are many themes in Harry Potter I possibly did not notice or didn't list to keep this opening post somewhat legible. However, I welcome any additions to these matters in this thread, including religious and philosophical. I am listing four that stand out for me.

Please feel free to add your own. The only thing I would ask of fellow posters is rather than make this a shipping/canon discussion of any sort, (except canon used to illustrate a particular theme) we try stick to literary themes found in Harry Potter and how they can be interpreted in positive/negative ways or the possibilities that could be exploited by certain political, religious, or philosophical factions. If any one would like to add the discussion the question as to whether or not seven fantasy books designed for young people can or will not have any influence on how young people regard real world institutions of events, I would consider that topical in this thread as well.

1. Snape finding Lily the only the Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change. On a individual basis, this is a story of one man redemption of a sorts. And on a personal basis it works. But idealistically--that is the individual reaction to something like terrorism or national policy of genocide-- it can get a little troublesome.
Dumbledore is able to use Slughorn and Snape because they found Lily attractive and loved her. The three high profile Slytherins who do the right thing are Regulus, because Voldemort maltreated his servant, not because he disagreed with Voldemort's policy of genocide; Slughorn does not agree with Voldemort's policies, but he prefers hiding to fighting, and is only called upon to do the right thing--and this is after two students are nearly killed, (one in his presence) -- by Harry playing on his affection for Lily, and Snape only goes to Dumbledore to save the woman he loved.

There are many things not said here: Is the possibility of attraction the only path to redemption for those who find themselves on either side of a totalitarian crisis or struggle. Should: Slughorn's (I don't imagine anyone who met her wouldn't have liked her..Very brave..Very funny... only have referred to Lily or should it have embraced each and every Muggle born, half-blood, or pure-blood person victimized by the war?

Of course, one method of creating interest in the actions of fascist or totalitarian regime to disaffected outsiders is to focus on the loss of something that community would find valuable. However, would an disaffected public join the fight against injustice if the testimony came from someone ordinary in intellect, experience, or appearance? (A little note--I recall one of the photographer's in the first part of the hunger crisis in Ethiopia in the seventies, saying he used to black and white photos because the people, even starving, were so beautiful, that outsiders would be moved by the photographs as art, not as information.)

2) [iMarietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. [/i] Magic does make some thing possible which would not be tolerated in real life except as outright abuse. However, it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to claim that facial mutilation in the real world is anything but a form of torture, but the lines are blurred in a magical world. But we are still left the image with a young woman made to bear the scars of her small group's verdict of betrayal. In real life this is no minor thing.

3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Harry sees the elves' after the battle. He saw Kreacher lead them against wizards and giants and dragons. When he thinks of Kreacher coming to him, it is to make him a sandwich, not as friend, but as a servant. It is not to give Kreacher his freedom and offer him a place in his household, as his service proves invaluable. I'm pretty certain Jo did not mean to imply that if the master is kind, one should not desire freedom, but what are readers to draw from this? I have no problem with the idea of service as a vocation, or the ancient tradition of viewing a Master as a teacher. But other than explaining what Regulus wanted to do, Harry does not serve as a teacher to Dobby or Kreacher. Dobby does not long for freedom but an end to abuse, and once again he is place into a situation when even the wages he demands are a token wage--not a living wage. He shows no desire to make a home or family of his own. Jo is English with a love for images found in the works of her own countrymen: We could read Dobby's death, or Regulus sacrifice as a reflection of Kipling sentiments :


http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/Gunga_Din.htm


But this is a generation of young people for whom certain subjects like War World Two, the Holocaust, the division of the Middle East and the beginnings of the state of Israel, the human rights struggle before and after Second World War and slave narration are not a part of tradition history but delegated to occasions like Black History Month.

And in dealing with the Elves have to keep in mind HP is fantasy, therefore a fantasy representation of slavery, not an accurate one of the institution. Although in much science fiction and fantasy an alternate species or even man made species like robots is used to illustrate the evil of the institution of slavery (not service!), it is stressed that Elves are humanoid not humans, therefore in Jo's world may have no prior conception or history of enslavement or freedom--except Dobby.

However, because Jo's story is so tightly woven around Hermione's realization that slavery is wrong, that is it possible that the elves story could leave the younger reader, with a very different impression of why the Institution of slavery is considered an ethical wrong on a number of levels?

4) Although Squibs --because they are a part of the magical community-- have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. Few Muggle abilities are thought of as worthy, except love, and love is powerless without magic. For example Petunia's acceptance of Harry seals the bond of blood Dumbledore forged, rather than Petunia accepting Harry forging a magical bond of blood that already existed between her sister and herself without Dumbledore's interference.

Feel free to grab any of the subjects and discuss, or bring in one of your own. Please have fun.

1. Snape finding Lily the only Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change. This personalizes the feelings of love and sacrifice. Certainly there are many muggle borns who have value - Hermione, Dean Thomas, Ted Tonks. They are examples of what you could consider the muggle born superiority when compared to people like the Carrows, Lestranges, or Greyback. Lily is not the only muggle worth loving, but Snapes and Slughorns admiration of her, as well as others such as Lupin, is a testament to both her looks and her personality, her ability to find the good in the least likely people.

2) Marietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. I am not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I was disappointed that nothing more was made out of this. Hermione got off scot free for doing this, and we never find out if the marks go away or if she is scarred for life. There are many things the Trio gets away with, but this is one of the worst examples.

3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Lets not forget about Winky. The three elves demonstrate 3 extremes of the condition of slavery. Dobby, abused and desiring freedom. Kreacher, shows great devotion to those who treat him nice, betrays the "good guy" Sirius because he treats him bad and goes to the "bad guys" Cissy and Bella because they treat him nice (but only for their own purposes), and is driven insane by his failure to complete the task left to him by his favorite master. When Harry promises to help him he becomes a different elf. Winky, she is, as far as we can tell, treated nicely in her home and is shamed because she was not able to obey a command and allowed Crouch, Jr. to escape, causing her being set free. As far as Harry thinking about asking Kreacher for a sandwich, he has been up for 36 hours and is not probably thinking very clearly. We are not privy to the conversation he has with Kreacher when he is called on, but I am sure Harry would have some kind words for him. He would probably offer the elf his freedom, but Kreacher would not want it. It is difficult to make comparisons to Elf enslavement (and robots for that matter) to real life because of the nature of elfs and their enchantment. Unfortunately we are not really told much about how they got into that condition. (I do like the Gunga Din quote)

4) Although Squibs have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. I would have liked to have seen more decent Slyterins in the story, other than Snape and Slughorn, just to show that they are not all evil. True to their type, they either fight on LV side or quietly sit in the background and try not to be noticed. This is a wizarding story and there is not really much room for the muggles. Some sympathetic neighbors of the Dursleys, or a little more of the Grangers would have been nice. Aunt Petunia and her family were there strictly for the contrast of nice boy/evil step family as you see in many fairy tales (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.)

One comment on LOTR. I did find it a little disturbing how it portrays the allies of Mordor. It is blatantly a west vs. east story. After I read about Tolkein and some 19th century history, I realized he was mostly a product of his times with the events that surrounded him. The Ottoman Empire had recently fell, conflicts within the territories of the British Empire, etc. that surely influenced him.

On Slytherins: For several months before DH came out I supported the fan theory that Snape was loyal to the anti-Voldemort cause becasue he had found out at some point that Voldemort had killed Eileen. Though the specifics turned out to be wrong there was an essential part that was correct in that theory - that Snape was motivated by something very personal rather than by idealism. I think that was an essential part of his character - everything was personal to him. But with your comparison to Slughorn and Regulus - perhaps this is rather common in Slytherin - someone who is really involved in Slytherin culture is not inclined towards abstract ideals, everything is personal. At least initially. Or perhaps it is their learning style. We do not know who were all the 6 boys who were chatting with Slughorn in that memory but the 3 we do know were probably Slytherins, at least one of them from a family pure enough to marry into the Blacks. I wouldn't be surprised if initially the Slug Club was a club of pureblood Slytherin males. Lily didn't match any of these criteria. It isn't clear if she was the first Muggle-born to be accepted into the club, but she certainly wasn't the only one - there was at least also Dirk Cresswell. So even if it took a pretty and likable girl to make Slughorn pay attention, he did overcome his prejudice (at least to some degree). And even Snape forbade Phineas Nigellus to call Hermione a mudblood, so I think at some point even Snape learned something more general . (We had to wait for the epilogue to see that Harry overcame his prejudice against Slytherin.)

Of course, in reality it is not uncommon for people to re-evaluate their position because of something very personal. The question is whether they generalize from the specific case, and whether this happens rather quickly (from 'I just realized this very attractive and decent person is a member of group X' to 'there is no justification to hate someone for being an X') or if it takes years and decades.

Regarding Muggles - we know the decent Muggles are out there, though out of sight. There are all the parents of Muggle-born students who embraced their child's difference and cared about hir happiness. Colin Creevey was sending all those photographs home because his Muggle parents cared about him and what went on in his life. Justin Finch-Fletchley's parents agreed to send him to Hogwarts instead of Eton despite the fact that in their circles they were giving up status, because Hogwarts was a better fit for their son. But I do adore those fanfics where Hermione/Snape/Dumbledore work on reconciling magic with Muggle science, and I think this kind of thing is indeed lacking in the series. The Flamels were around long before the Statute of Secrecy. They remember the days when Muggles were just people. Wouldn't it have been nice to discover that one of Nicholas and Albus' joined projects was about the application of particle physics to alchemy?

To Bombadillo:
Re: elves - They are portrayed very much like the Slytherins - not driven by ideology but by personal ties.


More often than not nice *girl*/evil stepfamily (though there are Cinderboy stories too). The orphan boys generally get families that are decent but of lower social standing than their biological one. I have seen a fan claim that this makes Harry a bit effeminate as a character.

Thanks. It is what I immediately thought of when I read that chapter.

I agree, this was Jo's intent. Howwever, about the fate of those who do not seem to have any particular value, the nameless, faceless people? Is there any indication that redemption is offered to someone like Nott for instance, as there is no pretty Muggleborn to turn his head towrad decency, and we never know what he felt aobut Death Eater's abandoning his father? And rather than put ourselves in Snape's shoes, let us put ourselves in the shoes of Mary McDonald whom is rather forgettable, I imagine. We know that Lily, James, Sirius, Lupin and other members of the Order were willing to put their lives on the line to protect these nameless people.

From what we see, there was nothing about these people that was able to reach through Snape. He didn't find them attractive, therefore they were not valuable. He accepted the Dark Lord's sentence of torture and death for these people and is not moved by their misery. Contrast this with Schindler who was moved when he saw first hand the misery of persons thrown in the labor camps/death Camps. What does Snape's tragic story of love betrayed-- and he betrayed it--about our own involvement against injustice? Are we as human beings only moved to act or indignation when we care for or find attractive or value according to our own culture. Does this affect how quickly we move to act on injustice? If this is the case, have we learned nothing from our experience with small and great acts of injustice, genocide, our demolition of cultures and societies alien to our own?

It doesn't matter what I meant, you captured the spirit of what kind of discussion I hoped for with your response. I was not so much dissapointed that the trio gets away with it, but more because nothing more is made of this. Other than Cho, we do not see any of the "Good" guys feeling any sort of mercy towards Marietta in books where mercy, forgiveness, atonement, repentence are discussed. I wish I could have seen more of this behavior in the younger characters of the book as the book is designed for the younger audience.


Yes, that is the question Snape's story raises, because of his actions. There is nothing to indicate he ever changed his mind about Muggle-borns or Muggles until the end of his life. Do we work to save lives or protect the rights of persons only because of personal feelings or that they offer something valuable? Who determines what is not valuable, who is worthy to survive. Do we like Sirius, toss everything into the garbage because it belongs to a certain society we disliked?

I have to leave, but I wanted to say I found the first two responses to this thread very encourging if this is the direction the thread is going in. Thank you both for fine, thoughtful post.

I hadn't thought of that, however there are stories such as David Copperfield and Oliver Twist, orphaned boys in abusive, poor conditions. Harry goes from that to Hogwarts where he finds people who care about him (and eats well).

At some point Rowling said there were some Slytherins among the students that came back to fight against Voldemort. This really should have been in the book!!!


Well he didn't exactly die of old age, and I don't think he expressed hatred of Muggle-borns in his later years. He thought it would take more than a few years at Hogwarts for a Muggle-raised person to understand what wizards believed and why. Not exactly an unreasonable position, only badly expressed. Both Ron and Dumbledore would have shared his view, only used a different wording to convey it.

Yes, that is the question Snape's story raises, because of his actions. There is nothing to indicate he ever changed his mind about Muggle-borns or Muggles until the end of his life.

I think there is a moment in his memories where he chastises someone for using the phrase mudblood. I'm not that I agree with your characterization of Snape or Regulus. I think both men are attracted to Voldemort as an abstract not a reality. Snape is the high school loser who is bullied, teased and never gets the girl. The death eaters offer him acceptance and power. When he takes the prophecy to VM, he doesn't know whom it references. He sees only a chance to prove himself worthy, make himself more valuable. Snape is appalled once the abstract becomes reality. No longer is VM attacking the faceless or meaningless; now he is attacking Snape's former best friend (and unrequited love). Yes, his immediate reaction is to try to save Lily and allow his hated enemy (James) to die. DD has to push Snape to think and grow more. Sure, Snape loves Lily but I don't know that we can read that as the only reason he joins the Order. It serves as an initial motivation but Snape continues in the Order for seventeen years. I'm not sure that he could sacrifice and place himself in mortal danger (Let's be real, if VM catches him a traitor, it won't be a quick or painless death.) if he didn't truly belive in the cause.

Regulus also is attracted to notion of VM as representing an elite members-only type of club. VM's callous treatment of Kreacher along with his disregard for Kreacher's life shocks Regulus into seeing the reality of VM. Regulus is further appalled by his own hand in mistreating Kreacher, his own racism, hatred, etc. He tries to thwart VM and sacrifices himself in doing so. (Atonement?)I don't read either man as superficial or unchanging. I read two immature, misguided people who do grow and change exactly as you have hoped they would.

There is also a nod to music, but when Harry visits Dumbleodre's office he never finds him listening to his favorite opera.

Perhaps I'm just slow this morning, but who is Alice and why does she need saving and what do her looks have to do with it?

More than a few film critics were offended by Jar-Jar Binks. It wasn't that he was there for low, slapstick comic relief, but that he was so obviously Stepin Fetchit in alien disguise.

1. Snape finding Lily the only Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change.
Well, the Snape/Lily story is a little more complicated than "sacrifice and change". She's not simply the only Muggle-born Snape's cared about, she's the first friend he has and the first witch of his own age that he's met and the only person he ever really confided in. It isn't simply that he tried to save her, it's that he was the one who betrayed her. And he didn't change so much as found himself isolated for life. He doesn't become a nicer person. He remains torn and conflicted, never wholly in Dumbledore's camp and double agent in the Death Eaters. During her American tour in October, JKR's comments about Snape began with saying he wasn't a hero, then to he's an anti-hero, and finally to he's kind of a hero. What Snape did feel was remorse and he spent his life regretting his choice to follow Voldemort.

2) Marietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. I don't understand this either. Marietta's betrayal deserved what she got. If one is looking for poetic justice, wasn't the sacking of Dumbledore and the torture of the DA punishment enough for Marietta's scars? Or is one defending established authority under all circumstances? Are we all to become "good Germans" complicit in larger crimes simply because we did not defy the lawful authority?

3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Well, I don't see eye to eye with you on the fate of house elves. And Harry wonders if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich, which is hardly a commanding thought. House elves are enslaved and it's a perfect analogy. However, forced emancipation of someone old and fixated as Kreacher would be willful cruelty. House elves are slaves in the Classical style, so there is an obligation held by the master/employer to provide for their old age. And I'm not sure how a young reader would misunderstand why slavery is wrong from the story of house elves. I don't follow that line of argument.

4) Although Squibs have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. Hmmm. Well, I disagree. Hermione's parents, Frank Bryce and to some extent even the Muggle Prime Minister are all decent folk. I'm not sure how Muggles are meant to enter the picture if they can't see the Wizarding World. As for Slytherin, Phineas Nigellus and Slughorn are decent wizards. And we only know a half dozen or so wizarding families who are Death Eaters. Regulus does not simply turn on Voldemort because of the incident with Kreacher, although that is the turning point. There is an elapse of time where he must have reconsidered the Death Eater philosophy.

Maime may I ask what race on planet earth even comes close to resembeling the Ewoks? They are unlike ANY race or culture of people I have seen.

As for the Jar Jar bit the character is played by a Jamacian, if he didn't want to misrepresent his peoople (cnsidering he's playing a Nabooing and not a Jamican...) then people should be asking HIM why he had Jar Jar talk that way.

Now to the subject of this thread I was never under the impression that Slughorn or Snape felt that Lilly was too pretty to die. Her attractiveness had NOTHINg to do with the issue. In fact I am not even convinced that Snape really believecd the propaganda he spewed in SWM. You even quoted Slughorn's reasons for caring and liking Lily so much.

For some it takes a personal loss to really have their eyes opened to what is going on. For me the HP was the perfect kind of morality tale one that was not preachy and pretend to know what is the best for the rest of us. If you want to be preached to read Piers Anthony's Through the Ice, he'll treat you to exaclty how he feels the world should be run. Unfortunatly we are all human and that is what Jo's writting illustrates that we strive to make a better world even though we are imperfect our selves.

Alice Longbottom, David. The title of the thread was inspired by speculation that Alice, although she would have thrown herself between Voldemort's curse and Neville, could not have provided protection for Harry, because there was no Death Eater who found her attractive enough to move them to ask the Dark Lord to spare her life.

This post, and forgive me if I'm mistaken sounds like a shoot the messenger phrase. (I'm teasing) I only repeated the criticism. I didn't make them. And think I made it clear in the first paragraph of the introduction of this threat that I neither want or expect a morality tale from Jo or any other author. The general gist of the thread is not an accusation that Jo does these things, but examining certain criticism.

For some people, marring the face of a young girl is the issue. Not everyone lives in our society where facial scarring or mutilation is a crime. Facial scarring is a very controversal form of punishment that has come to attention of those working hard to insure basic human rights as well as civil rights for women world wide. There is a thread dedicated to this issue. Many of us, inclluding myself, as you have, did addressed the obvious: something had to be done to stop Marietta. That isn't the concern. Those who have expressed concern have expressed concern with the form the Marietta's punishment took. Immediately when we see Marietta adopting a scarf to hide her scars, it is almost impossible to not to assoicated this image with the image of mutilated women we have seen.

The line of the arguement is this: at the end of the battle Harry doesn't express concern for the health of his servant, and Kreacher is his slave by inheritance, but wonders if his servant who has acted as a leader in a battle could act as his servant and bring him a sandwich.

We would be shocked if he thought could Molly, who had just lost a son, could make him a pot of stew...after all she's just been in a battle and she's just lost a child, she's helping tend the wounded. It would be, unless she offered, inappropriate.

Who is helping to tend the elf wounded? I agree with you that in showing the reader that elf equality is not a battle that is easily won, this passage does well, as does the absence of any freed elfs later. Judging by our own society, shoiwng elves assimilated as equals in Wizard Society a mere 19 years later is asking a bit much, even of fantasy.

However, I'm not as certain as you that younger readers would understand why slavery is wrong from the story of house elves. Why abusing a servant or child comes clear. We can easily draw a parallel between Sirius treatment of Kreacher to Snape's treatment of Harry.

Many young and a not more than a few of old readers feel Harry should only offer Kreacher freedom if he (Kreacher) wants wants it. There seems to me some confusion between the evils of the institution of slavery and the honor of a life of service.



Racism is not always expressed as hatred. Something as simple as saying Harry talks like a Muggle to illustrate Harry's ignorance or lack of subtly indicates Snape still thinks because Muggle are incapable of performing magic, they are incapable of understanding or appreciating it. And why should it take any Muggle born witch or wizard any longer to understand the Wizard world that it takes a wizard raised as Ron and Malfoy were--pretty much isolated from wizards not in their family or social class? They're all in school to learn. There is nothing to indicate that Dumbledore treated young Muggle-borns students like special needs students or felt they should be segregated from students raised in a Wizard household.

How are you defining loser? Snape had friends, influencial friends among in Slytherin house. He was unpopular with non Slytherin students for good reason, but everything points to him having welcomed in the house of his choice and having long lasting friendships.

One of the reasonshe didn't get the girl was because he was drawn to and did support a murderous, racist, cult leader and his followers. He is not a victim of unfortunate circumstances, he is a maker of them. But because he fell in love, fortunately with The Good Girl, he is saved.

Blaise is not attracted to Ginny because she is a blood traitor--we don't see him again. We hear of Nott, we don't hear him of him again. The only two people we know for certain had a change of heart is Snape, because of his attraction to Lily, Regulas because Voldemort maltreated his servant. Slughorn stays in hiding until he is reminded of his attraction for Lily's bright personality. No Slytherin, not even Narcissa, who is a loving mother is moved because of the they understand the misery the Death Eaters have caused others--even and especially Snape does not become aware of others until HBP, (Maybe earlier in OOP when he saw Cedric killed. It is not the first time he saw Death Eaters Kill, he probably helped them, but it is the first time he saw these actions from the point of view of the victim. One would hope the reason Narcissa saved Harry was because she sees a boy, only a few months younger than the son she is willing to risk everything for lying as dead--but no, we are told even her reasons are not compassion for Harry, but concern for Draco.

Good heavens! Such a strawman argument. I don't even follow this line of thinking. Who said Alice Longbottom wasn't attractive? It's only noted that she was round-faced, but both she and Frank were very popular. And I don't see why her throwing herself in front of Neville wouldn't have saved him if the circumstances were identical. And I'm not sure how providing protection for Harry figures into this; Lily didn't provide protection for Neville. And what do Snape's pleadings have to do with anything as they were useless in the end. This is a very curious argument.

I again fail to understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting JKR is unconsciously racist or sexist? Why bring in criticisms of Ewoks and Jar-jar Binks? What do Star Wars have to do with Harry Potter? Can you please explain?

Well, the cursed contract did not discriminate between male or female. If Ernie MacMillan had betrayed the DA, he'd have had SNEAK across his forehead. The point is to identify the spy and traitor, not to exact just and fair punishment. If someone has just betrayed me and put me at risk of prison and torture, I'd like to see it on her face. After the fall of occupied France, many women who had taken up with German soldiers had their heads shaved. And many collaborators went to great lengths to hide their sneakiness. If one is too squeamish about protecting one's side, one shouldn't be involved in war.

Again, this is a strawman argument. What elf-wounded? Why is Nevilled allowed to eat along with the other victors, but Harry must fast? Again, you ignore the fact that Harry does not order Kreacher to do anything. He wonders if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich in bed.

As for freeing Kreacher, where would Kreacher go? What would Harry be obliged to offer him by way of a pension? Would Kreacher find freedom at his age no different then being tossed out on the street? Until the conditions for emancipation have been set, there's no point talking about it. Harry's stuck with Kreacher and can't do much but let him do as much or as little as Kreacher wants to do.

Yes, slave owners are always happy to manumit the old, the sick and weak. The point is that these are the very slaves that are owed more than freedom, they are owed care, room and board.

I'd also point out that we don't know what Dobby is up to throughout his time away from Harry. Who's to say he hasn't found love and happiness? He certainly was terrified to return to Malfoy Manor. And he did that out of love for Harry, not out of some odd water-boy devotion praised in Kipling's Gunga Din.

I would have said he was damned. He betrayed Lily, albeit unwittingly. He did betray her. She died because of what he did. And having betrayed Voldemort in an attempt to undo his treachery, he's damned to being alone for the rest of his life. He's neither fish nor fowl. A bitter, torn and conflicted man, he must walk the line between Death Eater and Order member. He can never reveal his true story to anyone and he remains unsure of his feelings toward Harry even in the end. He is both saved and damned. And I don't see his fate as anything to admire.

Saying that no DE found Alice attractive enough to save may have put a wrong connotation on the statement. I believe the key is that since no one would have asked Voldemort to spare her (for whatever reason), Voldemort wouldn't have asked her to stand aside. So her death wouldn't have provided magical protection for her son (Neville, not Harry). I believe you are incorrect in saying that Snape's pleadings have nothing to do with it. If he hadn't pleaded for Lily's life, Voldemort wouldn't have given her the choice to live. He would have just killed her and then killed Harry. So Snape's pleadings were instrumental in providing Harry with the magical protection that allowed him to survive.

If he hadn't pleaded for Lily's life, Voldemort wouldn't have given her the choice to live. He would have just killed her and then killed Harry.

I don't know Harrydavid. I think Lily had placed herself between Harry and Voldemort from VM's arrival. I think she made her choice long before VM offered her an out.

Maime: I see Harry's wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as a desire to return to a normal, comfortable life. As Davidenglish pointed out, it was merely a thought not a request. As for his lack of concern, perhaps he has seen Kreacher and knows he is well. It's easy to equate house elves to slavery but the elves want to serve. They are not a good analogy for the wrongs of institutionalized slavery. I saw them as somewhat analogous to women. Their story parallels neatly with the idea that all women must work outside the home etc. Feminism, in many cases, ignores the individual's right to choose. It is interesting that Hermione wants elves freed, others don't even question their servile state but no one really asks the elves what they desire. Kreacher blossoms, not just under Harry's kindness but when he is allowed to fully perform his role of trusted house elf. This is what he wants to do. There is too much going on here to neatly parallel the slavery analogy.

Something as simple as saying Harry talks like a Muggle to illustrate Harry's ignorance or lack of subtly indicates Snape still thinks because Muggle are incapable of performing magic, they are incapable of understanding or appreciating it.

I think this is too great a reach. Recognizing that a muggle doesn't understand magic is accurate, not racist or elitist. Wizards understand the wizarding world because they live in it; they understand magic because it is a part of their life. If you suddenly moved into an Amish community, you would have trouble understand and adjusting. I have friends who spend a great deal of time in Tokyo and they discuss the vast differences in culture and the challenges of travel in a city where the language is not even in an alphabet that they recognize. This is acknowledging differences not racism.

ETA: A better example would be arranged marriages. I live in a rather diverse neighborhood and there are several couples whose marriages were arranged by their parents. I find the idea of an arranged marriage appalling, to be blunt. These people are amused by the notion of romantic marriage. They are all happy in their situation and plan to arrange their children's marriages. I don't think I'm racist so much as completely removed from their cultural frame of reference. Just as their experience, not their racist attitude, makes it difficult for them to understand my view of marriage. It makes for great coffee klatches, though.

Well, I can see that, harrydavid, if the offer to stand aside is part of the equation. But this assumes, through speculative fiction, that there would not be any reason for asking Alice to stand aside. And this kind of argumentation leads to very silly conclusions.

Lily would have been completely unaware of why she was asked to step aside. And, although it is true that Snape's request did save Harry, it was not his desired outcome. Lily was murdered. It is just as possible that Wormtail asked her life be spared when he betrayed the Potters. It did seem to be James who made enemies, not Lily.

The question that we must ask is why did Voldemort consider granting Snape's request. Did Voldemort feel indebted to Snape? Did he care for Snape's feelings even a little? After all, it is Wormtail who finally betrays the Potters, not Snape. Snape didn't even know who the prophecy referred to. You'd think Wormtail's request would carry more weight at the time.

The insulting part of this equation is assuming Alice L is unattractive or that there would be no reason possible to spare her life. That's just created a What if scenario to be mean. Time is linear. Of course things would be different if something was changed. But why would it be different should Alice had been asked to step aside?

Davidenglish: I assume it was Snape that asked that Lily be spared. I think that Harry refers to this in one of his last speeches to Voldemort. Voldemort acknowledges the request from Snape. He tells Harry that Snape later agreed that Lily was unworthy of Snape's affection.

Why grant the request? I think Voldemort liked to play the benevolent dictator - occasionally throwing a bone to his followers to prove how magnanimous he was. It allowed him to boast of his own generosity while binding his followers more tightly to him. It ensured the loyalty of the Death Eaters but more encouraged them to strive to establish themselves as worthy of favors from their dark lord. Disappoint Voldemort and incur his wrath. Please him and earn rewards. Overhearing the prophecy - a prophecy that VM didn't even know existed - would have been a huge accomplishment that deserved a reward.

Has JKR ever explained exactly what Lily did to save Harry? Was it simply the act of self-sacrifice or did she manage to perform a charm? Voldemort mentions her "invoking ancient magic" that he had overlooked.

JKR does talk about it in the Emerson/Melissa interview. And having a choice is important. In the Christian Symbolism thread, I analyzed what Lily said before she died and I suggested it did resemble an incantation so I assume she unintentionally created a charm.

Although they were all members of The Order of the Phoenix, weren't Alice and Frank aurors, while James and Lily weren't professionals in that sense? The way I see it, Alice was in a position of authority, which would give her the ability (or means to gain permission) to act upon any sort of criminal intelligence that she uncovered while being in the Order. The Order of the Phoenix and The Deatheaters were rivals, with neither as a group having sanctioned jurisdiction over the other. As Aurors, there would be certain things that Alice and Frank would not be able to divulge to the other members of the Order, though if captured and interrogated by the DEs, might "break" and create an exploitable weakness within the Ministry itself.

Reducing Alice and Frank to "lost souls" was a business strategy - like stealing the playbook for a rival team, at whatever cost, while the Lily/James scenario was more personal - they had nothing to offer in terms of insider knowledge except what was already revealed in the prophecy: Harry. Voldemort could "afford" to spare Lily's life because she was inconsequential in his eyes, yet she was a bargain, because it would strengthen not only Snape's devotion to him, but it could make him appear benevolent and "just" in the other DEs eyes, especially those whose leanings weren't entirely anti-Muggle, and had their own Mudblood skeletons in the closet. It turned out that he didn't know what he was up against when he confronted Lily's profound, but severely underestimated strength, both as a powerful witch, and as a human being.

davidenglish


It is taking this in a different direction, but I got the feeling that what turned Wormtail was the fragmentation of The Marauders once James and Lily became an item, and intensified when they got married and started their own family life. This break-up of the "posse", where they would see each other every day, plan their pranks and good times might have sent PP to search for a group of "mates" that would rally around a single cause, and the Deatheaters filled that void.

1.snape finding lily the only muggle-born worthy etc.
As others have pointed out, it often takes personal involvement for people to oppose some regime and ideology, and it is often done for personal reasons rather than a sweeping conviction of right or wrong. Snape, despite or perhaps because of his Muggle father, was inclined to think magical folk were better than Muggles, right from the start. He loved Lily – not only was she seemingly the only child-witch in his neighbourhood, but she was also pretty – but he disliked Petunia. Petunia and Snape’s relationship already started on a prejudiced footing. Nothing shows that Snape changed his point of view re:Muggles. When Lily asks him whether it makes a difference, being Muggle-born, he does hesitate before he says ‘no’. Perhaps he has already been taught that Muggle-borns are inferior, but his admiration (interestingly termed here as ‘greed’) for Lily induces him to tell her that he doesn’t think so. Snape isn’t a magnanimous man, and as he become increasingly involved in Dark Magic and pureblood ideology he is always conflicted about loving Lily. The fact that ‘Mudblood’ just sort of slips out when he is publiclydenying any friendship with her testifies to that. Unfortunately that is the point when his friendship with Lily breaks and all hope of ever being with her is lost. That is the reason why he admonishes Phineas Nigellus for calling Hermione a ‘Mudblood’ – it’s a bad word, not just as a general insult but because it’s the insult that he more or less wrecked his life with.
With Slughorn I believe it is more a case of doing what is right and what is easy. Slughorn likes a comfortable luxurious life. He’s not a particularly brave person, and it is much easier for him to hide and try and forget about Lily Evans than to actively involve himself in Dumbledore’s and Harry’s cause. Dumbledore uses Harry’s eyes – Lily’s eyes – as bait for Slughorn as well as Snape, to induce them to do the ‘right’ thing(s).

I quite like the fact that JKR writes these characters in so many shades of grey. Because though we might want an idealistic book for young readers, I think JKR does us more of a service in showing what people really can be like, flawed and conflicted and making choices, and showing what wide effects these personal choices have. Lupin is another flawed character who can never quite get over his own self-consciousness. He has a strong enough sense of what is right, and still his own self-hatred or lack of self-esteem leads him to acts of inexcusable pure cowardliness (deserting pregnant wife). But sometimes we all need a kick up the backside.

2) As for Marietta… I must admit I never gave the poor girl another thought. Again, she was someone who made the choice of what was easy rather than right.

I think that's a rather broad statement to make - some people have war thrust upon them whether they want it or no, and when your country is occupied you can't not be involved. And there are sometimes quite complex reason why someone starts 'fraternising with the enemy' - loss of hope, rape, or maybe that one German soldier was on an individuall level nicer than the absent French husband? - not always plain opportunism. Anyway, Marietta was dragged into the DA by Cho and it seems she was being hassled by her mother and Umbridge. Unfortunately she cracked. I'm not going to say she didn't deserve to be exposed like that, but still I am just going to pretend those scars fade after a few years… *la la la la*

3) House-Elves: I believe Regulus didn’t go against Voldemort because Voldemort abused his house-elf, I believe he truly had a change of heart. He knew about the Horcruxes and wanted to destroy them. Anyway, about Harry wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich… the last time the poor kid rested was the night before he broke into Gringotts. I imagine his jumbled thoughts go something like this: He wants someone to bring him a sandwich, he knows Ron and Hermione are probably nearly as exhausted as he is himself, at Hogwarts food is always brought by house-elves, Kreacher brought him food at No 12 Grimmauld Place, house-elves know where the food is and can apparate within Hogwarts  Kreacher might bring sandwich (Kreacher might also be too tired).
Winky’s fate may only be a side-illustration of the problems of slavery. As for asking the elves what they themselves want – as Hermione realises, most elves have so internalised the master/slave ideology that NOT serving a master would be the greatest shame. They are brainwashed. Though I am slightly cautious about picking up on wondering’s analogy with women’s rights (women are not an alien race like elves, and the human female characters of HP already contain JKR’s criticism), centuries of cultural conditioning are not done away with easily and it only takes a look at the way early (and, alas, contemporary) feminists were viewed by other women to draw the parallels to Dobby (odd clothing included! ;) )

4) Squibs/Muggles – well, my defense of JKR here would be that the books do focus on the magical world. There are a few Muggles, some good, some bad – the main Muggle characters like the Dursleys are awful. But the way I read the books, they take place in our world, in the present, and we all (I hope) are decent, clever Muggles & know that such beings exist. JKR is telling us about the wizards, not the Muggles, and her books, though increasingly wide-reaching, are quite focussed on a specific set of characters in one country. I did not feel that Squibs or Muggles were ignored or unflatteringly portrayed.

Anyway, although I ravenously devour these books many a time, I do think that, since they are books – stories – we can’t overanalyze every single part because there are some things we just cannot definitely know about all the characters – different opinions on these forums testify to that. So there are some gaping holes – like the lack of decent Slytherins (since in my opinion neither Slughorn nor Snape can be called decent). JKR writes some interesting things about Theodore Nott on her website (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=5) and we don’t get to see it in the books, I think that’s a pity, because as was noted above, we have to wait for little Albus Severus to come along to realise Harry knows Slytherins aren’t all bad.

(But hey, the books are fat enough… though IMO Grawp could be sacrificed to make way for a few decent Slytherins, Marietta’s scars, and a full critique of SPEW and its implications for future generations of wizard/house-elf relations).

To Maime the hunter:

And Hermione chose something that had very little chance of doing so. If it hadn't been't for a fortuitiously placed mirror Marietta would have said all she knew and the DA wouldn't have known until too late, and no memory modification by Kingsley would have helped. A better jinx would be something that made the traitor temporarily speechless, like Snape's Langlock. And if Hermione didn't find that one, she could have used the Protean Charm - the one she used for the coins - to give her warning at the time of betrayal, giving her a chance to cancel the meeting. Hermione's choice of jinx makes her appear as more interested in punishing the traitor than in actually saving her friends.


Harry is Muggle-raised, of course he thinks in Muggle cultural terms. (Though I think Snape would have accused most Gryffindors of lack of subtlety. This sounds like a trait Slytherins would take pride in.) Just like Hermione thought of house-elves in terms of Muggle slavery. Edited: I have been exposed to US culture through the media since childhood, have been living there for 7 years, but I still occasionally misinterpret situations (especially politics and social issues) because I am thinking in Israeli cultural terms. All Muggle-raised children at Hogwarts are de facto immigrants.

To wondering:

So did James. But his death did not protect Lily, nor Harry. Rowling made a point that the only reason Lily's death was different in its magical consequences is that Voldemort decided to offer her a choice.

To davidenglish:

Well, he suffered some 17 years, but the Potterverse has a factually demonstrated afterlife (especially for headmasters). He will be able to enjoy the company of past headmasters, see himself honored with a posthumous Order of Merlin First Class and hear directly that Lily had forgiven him (because of course she did, she is St Lily the Dead).


I'm afraid Snape would have accused you of lacking subtlety for your reading of Maime the Hunter. It seems you are missing the sarcasm in her writing. What I read in her post is not the assumption that Alice wasn't attractive but that the magical effect of Lily's act depended not on her choices and values but on the choices of the archvillain Voldemort, and what's more aggravating - the whole situation came about because Snape found her attractive. To go to an extreme, Lily's attractiveness to someone on the enemy's side gave her son an unprecedented edge. Lily did not love Harry more than James did but his sacrifice was mundane while hers was magical.

To davidenglish and Tom Scribble regarding Marietta - see my response to Maime the Hunter at the top of this post. Considering the alternatives Hermione had available to her she does not appear as interested in saving herself and her friends from being caught but merely in punishing and pointing out the traitor well after the fact. To me she comes across as vindictive and petty rather than protective.

On the slavery of house-elves in general: The house-elves know no other existence and they are dependent on their masters for food, shelter and having a purpose in life. So forced emancipation in Hermione's way wasn't the thing to do, though that does not mean things should be left as they are. Another consideration is that it appears the house-elves are magically compelled to serve their masters as we see with Dobby's and Kreacher's compulsion for self-punishment whenever they are acting against an explicit order of their respective masters, despite lack of personal loyalty to said masters at that moment and personal disagreement with the orders in question. This bears parallel to the Imperius Curse. Someone acting in accordance with commands while under Imperius might say s/he chose to do so (because it felt pleasant and opposing the order felt very unpleasant) but an outside observer who is aware of the magical compulsion wouldn't consider it a real choice. So how much is the house-elves' choice of continued enslavement really their own? Can the spell be broken without causing more harm than good?

Well, I don't think alternate hexes would have been effective. Nor would disclosure. Recall that everyone who attended the meeting at the Hog's Head signed the paper. If Hermione had said it's hexed, someone might have begged off signing it and then there'd have been uncertainty about who had betrayed them. As it was, they were overheard, but Hermione was able to tell that it wasn't one of the members of the DA.

Recall too that Marietta went to Umbridge. She was not forced to tell all. And she'd likely have also felt the pimples forming on her face as she snitched. I have no doubt she actually looked at the mirror on purpose. And then was shocked into silence. The point of the hex is exposure, to out the traitor. And to do it in a way that cannot be disguised or reasoned away. And to spread the news as fast as possible to the others. The coins would not have worked as they need to be used by the owner to communicate news. They'd have been good once Marietta was exposed, but the coin wouldn't have been able to expose her.

davidenglish, a Protean Charm connecting the parchment jinx to something of Hermione's, followed by a 'meeting cancelled' signal through the coins would have kept anyone from attending the meeting. Whatever it was that triggered Marietta's pimples would have triggered the alert on Hermione's end.

When it comes to Marietta, I don't know. Having kids, they don't always do what they are told or warned not to do, sometimes with disasterous results: a child who touches a hot stove will still be burned, and some will be scarred for life. This isn't "fair", but fair doesn't always play into it. Marietta was warned that the "contract" was jinxed, although the type of jinx wasn't disclosed. With the DA being a very secret organization, anyone who was interested in joining it should expect that any security measure would be as high level as could possibly be mustered - and Hermione wasn't an average witch.

Could JKR be alluding to real life terms that one should be careful and do their homework before signing anything that implies a contract? If you don't read the fine print (or at least ask), you could find yourself behind some very unpleasant and lasting results. Hermione being a stickler for "homework", I can definitely see this as something that fits well with her personality, albeit a bit high-handed and self-righteous.

But then they wouldn't know who the traitor was and a witch hunt would begin and you know Ron would be pointing at the wrong suspects.

Oryx, I think the whole point of the hex was punishment and not warning the other members. Right in the first meeting, when they are asked to sign the parchment, Hermione says that by signing all members are agreeing not to sneak. (momwitch - they do NOT know the contract is hexed. That is one of Cho's complaints later on.) When they find out that all the clubs have been disbanded, Harry is worried that somebody sneaked - Hermione tells him they'd know exactly who it was, not that it should have been impossible in some way due to her hex. The hex had absolutely no warning function, it was only supposed to expose and shame the sneak, and so it did. That Marietta didn't actually disclose everything was pure luck, and not any doing of Hermione's, nor her intention.

And considering what was at stake I understand Hermione's motives; I don't think she was being petty. Perhaps a little over-the-top.

But warning the DA would have been more effective in preventing their expulsion, which was the most significant risk. They went to that last DA meeting without any warning, they only saw Marietta's face after they were already caught. At the very least Hermione should have combined a warning with her jinx. An ounce of prevention etc.

Great questions, Maime, and so much to think about from everyone! I'll just dive in as well...

1. Snape finding Lily the only the Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change.
My thoughts about this, like those of several posters before me, relate to the specifics of the relationship between Snape and Lily--the fact that they knew each other pre-Hogwarts, that they lived near each other, that Lily was probably the first real friend Snape had, that Lily demonstrated true care and concern for Snape, etc. Snape's home life, I think, had a lot to do both with setting up the blood status prejudices that he would have, as well as likely limited his early contact with other wizards in general--pureblood, half-blood, or Muggle-born. We cannot know if no other Muggle-born witch could have turned Snape's head or rivaled his "obsessive love" for Lily, simply because Snape never really had a chance to explore this, if that's what he wanted to do. Once he met Lily--actually, even before he met her--his young heart loved her, and there was no chance for anyone else. Who's to say that, had he met Alice instead of Lily, he wouldn't have loved her the same way, and Lily wouldn't have had a chance with him?

That being said, Maime, I see where you're going with this--that Lily had an advantage when LV came calling in Godric's Hollow to kill her son, and that advantage was based one person's attraction to her (I assume that you mean "attractive" holistically--not just related to her appearance, but also her nature, personality, mind, etc.). Honestly, I see this circumstance as one of those little quirks of fate. As for Snape--I see him, certainly, as changing "sides" for Lily, but not necessarily as changing for her in nature, style, perspective, etc. He certainly did sacrifice for her (in my opinion), but with the story as we have, we have no way of knowing whether he would have ever done the same for any other Muggleborn.

2) Marietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines.
I think that we might want to consider that British boarding school culture might be somewhat different than whatever experiences and backgrounds that we might be approaching this issue from. It might be that betraying your friends and colleagues in the way that Marietta did is considered a sort of high treason, that should have lifelong, permanent consequences--although Marietta can certainly redeem herself as she grows up and in the future, we still see her in HBP using makeup to cover up the pimples.

Of course, we don't know if the pimples are indeed permanent--perhaps the right counter-jinx/-hex had not been found and/or applied, or maybe the jinx-er (Hermione) would have to undo herself. But once again, Maime, I see what you mean--how cruel is it to mar, possibly permanently, someone's face simply because she made a choice you didn't like? Even if the pimples don't hurt, I don't see this as the punishment fitting the crime--unless Hermione's intent was to warn anyone in Marietta's future that she did once rat out her comrades.

Interestingly for myself, while I had no problem with seeing Marietta's pimples in OOTP, I was somewhat troubled that they were still there in HBP. I guess I was thinking that yes, Marietta deserved some "punishment" from those she had wronged, and that it was physical (as their scars were)--but that everyone makes mistakes and deserves, perhaps, at least one chance to redeem herself!

3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates.
The thing about house elves--their subjugation at the hands of wizards is so ingrained, so complete, that I rather think JKR might have been giving us an alarmingly accurate picture of how they consider freedom and service. As much as we might want to see Dobby setting up his own household and being his own master (rather than choosing who he wants to serve), the practice of servitude had been in place for so long, that any change to that would have to occur quite...irritatingly...slowly. I think that Harry does care for Kreacher, and because of that, knows that Kreacher would be hurt and insulted if Harry were to free him. So maybe the early part of the process is to work for better treatment of elves at the hands of masters? To work for pay? I don't know...but I do think that Kreacher would have brought Harry the sandwich regardless of a magical obligation, just because he loved and admired him so much, and would have been proud to do it. That certainly doesn't mean that elvish slavery is OK--just that there's so much more to it.

4) Although Squibs --because they are a part of the magical community-- have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels.
I certainly think that Ted Tonks was a decent Muggle! As far as Slytherins--I honestly think we just didn't see enough of them to be able to judge, simply because Harry didn't associate with them. Slughorn really changed my perspective on Slytherins, to see them less as inherently horrible, and more as self-preservationists. Snape did do some decent things, and I think there was a bit more to Regulus, as well, than simply concern for his servant.

I agree, Tom. The simple fact is that no one person is perfect, and each flaw or deficiency evident in human nature has its own varying consequences--and when some vices or flaws are combined, those consequences can be exponentially more detrimental. And without artists who are willing to show and portray such thing, some of us might never think about it at all!

ETA: Oryx noted in post #31 below that Ted Tonks was a Muggle-born wizard, not a Muggle. Thanks Oryx!

Yes, I too am up in the air regarding Marietta's fate. I cannot find that book but didn't Hermione offer any admonition regarding signing? On the other hand, Marietta did pledge her word. More than anyone, she knew her circumstances. Yet, she chose to join the DA. Later, she proved untrustworthy. I do wonder if Hermione thought they would have ample opportunity to see the "Sneak" and change their arrangements. At this point in time, Umbridge was using torture. Marietta blithely offered up her classmates for somewhat nebulous reasons. (At least that's my memory...where is the book?)

Thanks Davidenglish and Oryx for the explanation of Lily's sacrifice. I was working along the lines that James knew only that VM was after him and Lily; he simply died trying to hold VM off. Lily seems aware that VM is after Harry. "Not Harry. Not Harry..." Does she know that VM is after Harry at this moment or does she expect to be killed and hopes to have her son spared? I really hadn't considered that Snape, along with Lily, was responsible for Harry's survival that night.

Yes, Tom Scribble, I was reaching with the women's rights analogy. I hadn't considered a magical spell forcing the elves into subservience. I was thinking along the lines of "if service truly makes them happy and..." and the forced liberation idea. My reference was the fairy tales (The Shoemaker and the Elves is best known) which depict elves as voluntarily helpful. They vanish once they receive repayment/recognition, usually in the form of clothing.

It is true that Hermione did not reveal that the parchment was hexed. But she did say it was a bond: "So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to."

I don't think the Protean Charm works the way Oryx is describing. It's more of a text-messaging thing. Whereas, by signing the parchment, one has taken the hex upon oneself like a website cookie. The coins only interact amongst themselves and must be changed by the user deliberately.

The thing about the Sneak hex is that it means that the traitor can't face the one's she's betrayed without being exposed. She's lost face. She's publicly humiliated. It's a booby trap in that it both exposes the sneak and punishes them.

I am not in the leastwise worried about Marietta. The punishment for betraying the French Resistance was death. The stakes are high. And we must remember that this is not simply school hijinx. Harry is being tortured in detention, news of the return of Voldemort is being suppressed, the DADA class has become a joke, and both teachers and students are facing explusion. I should point out that two members of the Wizenmagot, Griselda Marchbanks and Tiberius Ogden, resign when Umbridge is made High Inquisitor. This is no longer playing pranks in the manner of Fred & George raiding the kitchens. This is war. Pimples are a mild punishment.

Again, on the question of Snape, it's not simply that he loved her. It's that he is responsible for her death. He heard the prophecy, he told it to Voldemort, he probably told Voldemort about the four Marauders as well. And Snape then trusts Voldemort so little that he goes to Dumbledore to undo what he's done. And so becomes the double agent that he remains to the bitter end. He does not save Lily and must live with the guilt that he as good as murdered her. And, as a double agent, he cannot get on with his life as he no longer has a life. That knowing one of Voldemort's victims should change him is a common reason for villains coming to their senses. People without compassion lack imagination and often need to see their own cruelty first hand before they understand how wicked they are.

But Harry isn't a Muggle. Neither is Hermione. And from the moment she discovered she was a witch Hermione has studied everything abour the wizard world and magic. Her parents have allowed her to spend time with the Weasleys. And is there any evidence that because a Muggle, like Petunia who knows of magic but cannot perform it, cannot understand it? We would not say that because one cannot carry a tune, they cannot understand music theory. Why should this be true of magic?

I don't know if this is a reach , especially in a story that involves something as complex as social and intitutional racism. Snape's statement resembles attitudes women and persons of color of my generation and my mother's and grandmother's Generation confronted on the job and at institutions of higher learning, even in arts: women don't really understand mathematics or science because their major role is in the home, or persons of Africanand certain other societies lacked the intellectual abilities to understand the complexities of language, the arts, the sciences.

Art in certain groups of people is not creativity but instinct or learned by rote, which is Snape's insult of Hermione's knowledge--her answers were something anyone who could read could recite, as opposed to performing and understanding these things. I think Jo very much captures in Snape's relationship with Lily and Hermione the feeling of one who is told to their face that their prospects for excellence limited by sex, ethnicity, culture, or class. Lily, says Slughorn and Snape, and Hagrid, is quite the witch in spite of her background. According to Snape: Hermione because of her background, speaks of things she doesn't understand.

This is a major reason Jo's elves are not an exact or even accurate analogy of slavery as it appeared in the real world--although it seems very much the thinking of those non-slave or non slave holders might have held during colonial times--not only in the US, but throughout the colonialized world.

In a way, so does Jo. Ron speaks this point of view, when he notes truthfully that Winky loves her "family" and the elves loved to serve. This was a very common view of the attitude of slaves in the colonies, that they were sastified with their lot. One could look at the Phyllis Wheatley Poem:
And believe she saw slavery as redemption, rather than Christianity. (Senagal became a majority Muslim nation in the 11th century and pockets of Christianity with the Portuguese in 14th century.) However, The number of runaways, slave rebellions in the European colonies, including the US indicates a people more aware of their condition and the inequities in the law than are Jo's elves. There is a difference between loving the condition of slavery and having few alternatives to survival but to endure an unjust condition in a flawed society.

Although there exist philosophy and faith based beliefs of some belief systems that maintain that some people by nature are designed to serve or that there are some people who by nature are designed subvert these so-called lower individuals, the idea that one should ask a person/being whether he or she wants her freedom before granting it seems to me to obscure the very subtance of liberty and free will. Either liberty and free will are gifts endowed by nature, or the Creator to all beings or they are boons given as rewards based on the whims certain groups of individuals.

However, I agree, that an author should not be held to politically correct imagery when creating ficiton based in the darker or more ambigious sides of humanity. The art comes first. Freeing Kreacher would have been the PC thing for Harry to do, you are right. But the theme of the story and Harry's charaterization would have suffered.

It was not very realistic for Harry Potter to think at that moment--oh heck, I better reward, or free Kreacher for his good deed in leading the other elves. He was hungry. He had endured a great deal, he didn't want risk meeting others on the way to the kitchen to make his sandwich himself, as he was mentally exhausete, perhaps too exhausted to deal with the complex mixture of grief and relief the others were feelin. Kreacher, Harry knew of course would answer his summons and be more than happy and proud to do a small thing like make his master a sandwich--like Gunda Din offering his master his service with his dying breath.

We learn the story of Snape and Lily, from harry looking into Snape's POV. The readers readers sympathy is for Snape and his feelings for Lily. We have no connection to mentality or the suffering his other victims. The books were written primarily from Harry's point of view, and admittedly there was no place in the Harry Potter novels for voice of the nameless and the ordinary people who were victimized. They are not given a voice to ask "why me?" Even Harry looks at racism in the Wizard society from the outside, because he personally is not subjected to it.

Jo writes of Snape's and Voldemort's self-hatred almost as individual evil and attempts to justify or explain their self-hatred: their Muggle fathers were jerks. Therefore their self-hatred is the fault of: their Muggle fathers, their own feelings of powerlessness, rather than the racism that already existed in the society. Their Muggle fathers served as justification of the attitudes towards Muggles in Wizard society. Same with Hagrid: Giants are violent, and dull witted and what do we meet when we meet the Giants: Violent, dull witted creatures. Elves like to serve and don't want the gift of freedom. When we meet the elves and they love their condition, feel it is their lot and place in the universe and don't want the gift of freedom.

However, there is an odd phase of self-hatred, so odd and so strange it doesn't seem like hatred, especially in a racist world. And I think Harry does address this phase of racism when he meets Slughorn, when Slughorn tries to right his statement that Lily was so good he thought she must be pureblood. Being Muggle-born--as it seems to me evident in Voldemort's choosing to grab Charity and torture her for Snape and Voldemort was something to live up to or down to, or simply to hide like unfortunate relatives or substandard dwellings. Life becomes a performance, at times conversation a struggle to justify one's existance. Having a person of another culture, religion, color say to you: "Well, I know even though we're different, you're human just like me What do you say to that? Human just like you as opposed to what?"

If we put value on a persons ability to assimilate for example into a majority culture and add the matter of individual survival to it, it becomes something very dark. And again there is nothing to balance Snape in the younger generation of Slytherin youth. Well, not exactly. Malfoy can't kill, he has no stomach for torture for the sake of torture, but he has no spirit to rebel, only to run, he displays no compassion until his friend is killed.

Marietta's treasons though is not the question, nor is Hermione's options for that matter. It is method Jo choose to illustrate as fitting for a young girl who betrays her group that is unsettling.

Rowling said they faded a little but always remained there. I don't think she saw it as an issue at all, which bothers me.


He wasn't a Muggle, he was a Muggle-born wizard.

wondering, James was facing Voldemort without a wand. He obviously knew he would die soon enough. Even if he only thought Lily was the other target his death did not protect her.

As for house-elves, do fairy tale elves punish themselves physically for less than optimal service?

I stand corrected, Tom, but the whole thing about being a part of DA was to learn real defenses against the Dark Arts. Honesty and integrity in keeping vows and pledges is probably one of the oldest and most ancient magics. If you can't trust your associates, there is no integrity within your organization, giving evil the opportunity to flourish.

Even though Marietta was reluctant: (OotP, Scholastic p. 347) Nobody raised objections after Ernie, though Harry saw Cho's friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her name, there was a consensus that something important and binding just happened (ibid. p.347) There was an odd feeling in the group now. It was though they had just signed some kind of contract. The opportunity was there, to ask, if by signing the paper, they were committing themselves to something that could have unforeseen ramifications. If Marietta still had misgivings, she could have contacted Hermione privately, away from Cho, and resigned her membership before the first official club meeting took place or was announced. Most contracts have escape clauses which don't make the contract mutually binding until a certain amount of time has elapsed, and Hermione might have just given her a memory modification charm to secure the rest of the membership. That Marietta said "yes" and then broke the one condition that was set before she even signed: (ibid. p. 346) So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge - or anybody else - what we're up to., shows that she doesn't expect to be held accountable for her actions or her inaction - just like the Ministry's denial of what was staring them in the face about Voldemort.

Yep, and here's the quote from the webchat:It also gives Jo's reason for Hermione being so cruel. Jo loathes traitors. It always seemed strange to me that none of the Hogwarts teachers could undo a hex cast by a 14 year-old student. It sort of makes me wonder how hard they tried. I know Hermione is good, but the teachers are rather good at magic, you know.

I agree, momwitch. We seem to live in a world where no one accepts responsibility for their actions and words are treated as meaningless. In the USA, this is represented at the highest level where presidential signing statements are used to amend or to negate laws passed by Congress when clearly a veto was the only proper course of action.

Marietta Edgecombe is the daughter of Madam Edgecombe who is actively listeing in to the Floo Network. This is important as it shows a further parting of the ways. Sneaking and spying is in the family. And the predicament for Cho is that the friends of our carefree childhood years may not be suitable friends in the real world. It's a problem we often face when leaving school or dealing with the bigger issues of the world.Well, this is really something that is subjective and therefore it's more a problem for you, Maime, than for JKR. The hex is not sexist. Anyone who betrayed the group would have been branded.

"Ya know what happens to nosey people?" That's what Jack Nicholson's character is asked in Chinatown just before his nose is sliced open. And all state informers have had a traitor's mark placed upon their foreheads. This goes back to the Mark of Cain. Indeed, it appears in Revelation:

She is 16 at that point, but I also wondered why none of the teachers removed the jinx after Umbridge left, or got Hermione to do so. But it does seem Jo feels Marietta's betrayal should continue to be punished, which is a bit extreme, even though Harry and his friends were lucky that the consequences weren't even more severe than just losing Dumbledore as head.

I totally agree with you, momwitch, I just meant that Hermione didn't officially warn the other kids, which I quite like. I think also that that was Hermione's point, upright and honest as she is (mostly ;) ), to despise and wish to expose anyone with less firm convictions. Jo may seem blasé about Marietta being scarred for life, but then Marietta is her own fictional character, and I find there are several instances where circumstances are exaggerated within the fictional reality. Harry spending ten years in his cupboard is the one that most obviously springs to mind, many of the Care of Magical Creatures lessons, Umbridge's quill - I suppose you could argue that Hermione's cruelty toward potential sneaks is intentional although she is a 'good guy' (unlike Umbridge or the Dursleys). My point however is that though Marietta's scarring seems cruel, I doubt most readers will take it as an example or think that it's OK to scar the faces of those who betrayed them (even though there are real-life precedents).

I have a real issue with the idea that the only reason that Snape loved Lilly was because of her outer features. It has been implied over and over in this forum that Snape only became friends with her and later loved her b/c she was an attractive witch.
He didn't dislike Petunia based on her lack of attractiveness. He disliked her b/c she was a muggle, something he'd probably been taught by his mother or other relatives or perhaps by the actions of his muggle father. We see in Snape's memories that his father appeared to be abusive of his mother. We don't know more about this. Perhaps Snape's father abused his mother b/c she was a witch and feared her magical abilities and this fueled his anti-muggle tendencies later in life.

As to the Lilly thing and her attractiveness, I believe that everyone is just assuming that she was beautiful b/c so many people liked her. However, in most of the descriptions of her, people describe her attractiveness in terms of her personality and character, not in terms of her appearance.
It seems to me that some of these posts are simply showing a bias against attractive people on the premise of being non-conformist. Also, I really think that it does a discredit to Alice Longbottom to say that she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to save her son based simply on attractiveness or the lack thereof. In all actuality, Voldemort made the final decision on who he thought the prophecy referred to. He chose the Potters. Snape's pleading to him to spare Lilly wasn't made simply b/c she was pretty, it was because he harbored a love for her based on years of friendship. I don't recall anywhere that it says Snape only asked Voldemort to spare her b/c he thought she was attractive.

How can any of us say for sure that noone would have spoken up on Alice's behalf, if for no other reason than for information she might have provided to the Death Eaters stemming from her affiliation with the ministry and her career as an auror. How do we know that some other Death Eater wasn't harboring a secret love for Alice Longbottom. We don't know for sure and to say that JKR is promoting the belief that Lilly was saved based soley on her attractiveness is out of line.

Excellent point, bookmonster79. I suspect most fans have read For Girls Only, Probably...

I quote:

Hermione is a "good guy", but she has her flaws, too. I do think that part of her problem is her inability to control the situation: she is painfully attached to following all of the rules, but she also witnesses the injustices being committed (such as Harry's sadistic detentions with Umbridge), causing her to re-evaluate her position, especially as one in authority. It is her job as a prefect to enforce the school policies, which are usually instituted to ensure safety , and she simply cannot fathom that the students' safety is secure (ie. that she is doing her job), with a DADA curriculum which denies that which she has seen with her very own eyes.

In a more modern day and age, a "sneak" isn't always effectively attacked in a physical sense, but often in a psychological one, through a ruined reputation or slander in the Press. The quote from Revelation which David mentioned might be one of the earliest popularized examples of the pen is mightier than the sword. In the absence of a reliable Press, Hemione's use of words combined with a physical affliction makes a clear statement to the danger which being underprepared and misinformed puts the entire Wizarding Community, by their own voluntary collaboration. The scars that remain after such a shameful "episode" can last a very long time and even carry through subsequent generations, such as the prejudice and overall despise that many people of German descent suffered after World War II.

It seems like the original question also did not take into account that it was most likely Bellatrix who performed the torture on Alice Longbottom. I know that isn't stated explicitly in canon, but it seems reasonable to speculate that the male death eaters present at the torturing likely would have attacked Frank and left Alice to Bellatrix. I don't think Alice's physical appearance would have any bearing on how lightly or roughly Bellatrix would treat her. (Unless she had ever heard Voldemort call Alice sexy.)

The original question was about a hypothetical situation where Voldemort had chosen to kill Neville rather than Harry, and has little if anything to do with the eventual torture of the Longbottoms which wasn't related to the prophecy. Had Voldemort gone after the Longbottoms, without anybody in the equivalent of Snape's role, Alice could have acted the same as Lily, out of the same love, but there would have been no magical consequences, both Alice and Neville would be dead. This means that Lily's act gained extra weight in magical terms not because of her and her choices but because of Snape and Voldemort and their choices.

Can we all attempt to not make statements that sound personal. I am not the one who initially related the incident to the atrocious custom of facial mutilation. However, I think those who brought this up have a valid point simply because of what was done to Marietta and the reason. The reason given for facial mutilation in real world societies is often Betrayal of custom, culture, religion, or parents decree. It is significant that Harry is also caused to multi late himself because of Umbridge's hex. Seeing someone branded on the face or body, no matter how strongly we feel that this person should be made to take responsibility for his or her actions should give us pause, and I applaud each and every reader, especially young reader who has expressed this concern at the method.
I think I made this point in the initial thread that talked about the hex. The fact remains it is a girl who is marked--and I can find no fault with those who find this particular type of "punishment" disturbing. Now do I think Jo intended when writing this that she thinks all traitors deserve facial branding? I don't think so, in fact I'm certain she would be horrified by the idea that anyone walked away from her books thinking she would think such a thing. But what is the harm in readers letting her know that they found the image disturbing and why?

Bookmonster I appreciated and agreed with most of your post. However, we find people attractive for many reasons not just because of their looks. Snape and Slughorn found Lily attractive for different reason, not just because she was pretty. Snape found her so attractive--in manner, in looks, in her approach to life. In fact after a while he thought she was as good as any pureblood witch and far superior to witches of like heritage--other Muggle born. He gives her, because of the times they lived in and the wizard's views of blood purity and magical powers, a complex, torturous kind of complement, one not easy for someone like Lily to bear.

Everyone wants to think they are special, that they have attractive qualities, that, especially for the person they love--make they stand out in a crowd. However prejudice and racism can taint the vision of a society to the point that, depending who is giving it, the compliment is a bitter thing. You are bright. Thank you. You're so bright I thought you were a pureblood. What does that mean? You're so bright, it doesn't matter that you're a Mudblood. You don't talk like them. Your magic is more like ours--we purebloods and half-bloods. You don't deserve the fate of those other Mudbloods.

I don't think Snape thought: This muggle born is superior to the others, therefore I love her. But he does think Petunia is just a muggle therefore beneath his consideration. I'm more convinced he learned bloodline racism from his mother rather than he disliked Muggles because his father is abusive. Until Jo says differently, because of the way Snape is dressed, (the description sounds as if his mother doesn't allow him to wear muggle clothes, perhaps even attend school with Muggles or play with them), it seems fair to consider whether Snape's attitude towards Muggles, reflects his mother's attitude toward Tobias: he's just the Muggle sperm donor she married to carry on the Prince line.

Lily is in Snape's estimation "superior" to her sister, her mother, her father. Magic makes her superior. He loves her because she is kind to him, accepting, even a little awed by him at first, and she cares for him--possibly the first. There is nothing to suggest that Mulciber, Malfoy, even Igor disliked Snape. Their friendship was possibly as geniune as we would expect of anyone else of like minds. But, we learn, that because Snape loves her, he considers Lily more worthy than those other filthy mudbloods like her, whose lives he will have no problem whatsoever helping his Death Eater comrades destroy. Racism taints whatever feelings of attraction he has for Lily.

I am certain although Lily was proud of her accomplishments, she considered her gifts were a part of everything she was, including the daughter of Muggles, not exceptional to those born to Muggles. Lily was not ashamed of her heritage so naturally she is offended by Snape's making an exception. But had she survived what would she think of his love: On one hand his affection for her is a life line. She gets to live. But, because the special circummstances only apply to her, she must watch her fellows drown.

Agreed. Harry must be grateful to Snape for loving his mother for his survival.
Other than Harry, and in a small way, Neville, we don't really meet anyone with survival guilt, so we have no idea how Lily would have regarded Snape's plea for her life. Harry asks: Why did I survive and in five of six books we are told because Lily gave her life.

Then in the seventh book we are told Harry survived because Voldemort gave his mother an opportunity. The Dark Lord had this momentary flicker of mercy because Snape, who loved his mother, asked this of him. Lily's sacrifice is suddenly not that great a thing, because without Snape's love for her and Voldemort's momentary whim to please Snape, Lily couldn't have made her sacrifice count for anything. The love of the Death Eater is what gives the sacrifice of the mother it's power.

I like the idea of Snape the Repentant. Whatever works to get a person on the right path--we can't be choosy, especially when there is so little love in the world. Who am I to complain as to how someone